- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Hi Roger!
I was curious about your thought process when it comes to picking an aspect ratio for a film. Why, for instance, did you choose a 1.78 ratio for “Prisoners” and “A Serious Man,” while going with 2.39 for “Sicario” and 2.35 for “No Country for Old Men?” Do you feel like there are advantages one aspect ratio gives over the other?
I was also curious how you feel about the increasingly popular 2:1 ratio.
-
Replies
-
Why? I cant really explain that. The choice of aspect ratio comes after discussions with the director.
Yes, 2:1 seems quite popular but it is probably only a coincidence that the ‘right’ projects came along.
What are the sort of things you would discuss with the director to decide the aspect ratio? In “A Serious Man” for instance, what led you to shoot the intro in 1.33 while shooting the rest in 1.85?
The Coen Brothers wanted the ‘old film’ to introduce “A Serious Man’ so 1:33 gave that feeling. Otherwise, the film felt quite intimate and naturalistic. I suspect that is why we chose 1:85.
Some directors just like to shoot 2:35 and that is just a given. Personal choice. Nothing profound.
I’m in the middle of shooting a project in 2.39:1, cropped from a 6K 1.78 recording. We made the decision to frame that way to always include our characters’ surroundings even in the most intimate closeups. It also allows us to set a broad stage on which to let our characters perform in wide shots. In conjunction with this framing decision, we’ve greatly limited our handheld camerawork to only two or three specific moments. Everything maintains a very formal presentation, which (we hope) is suited to the story.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.